Gordon Kirkby

[Criminal Code, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to the motions which have been put forward by the hon. member. I wish to address these amendments as a group. I believe that would be the appropriate way to deal with them. They are all amendments to the dangerous offender and long term offender components of Bill C-55.

A new long term offender procedure which targets sex offenders is central to Bill C-55. Equally important are the changes that Bill C-55 proposes to the existing dangerous offender procedure. I suggest that Bill C-55 significantly increases the ability of prosecutors to obtain very long sentences against sex offenders and of course gives the courts the authority they need to impose these long sentences.

Bill C-55, in its present form, has received widespread support from victims rights groups, from prosecutors and from the police community. Many of the witnesses before the standing committee said that Bill C-55 is a major improvement.

What the amendments which the hon. member proposed try to do is expand the dangerous offender and long term offender procedures, but they do so in a simplistic way and in a way which would distort these carefully crafted measures and potentially lessen their impact.

Let me give an example. One of the amendments would postpone the initial parole review of a dangerous offender until 15 years into the sentence. Bill C-55 sets the date at seven years. The current law is three years. In other words, the government has found a middle ground between the Reform Party amendment and the status quo. There is good reason for this.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a parole review is especially important when we lock someone up for an indeterminate period. What is a reasonable period to make the offender wait before the initial parole review? In fact, no one gets out after only three years. Not very many get parole after seven years either. This is comparable to the waiting period for parole eligibility of sentences for very serious violent offences. That is why the government chose to set parole ineligibility at seven years.

The courts would not allow a waiting period of 15 years. It would be struck down as conflicting with the charter of rights.

Let us examine another of the proposed amendments. It proposes that an offender convicted of a second serious personal injury offence or perhaps even a broader list of offences would automatically be found to be a long term offender, without any special application being made. In other words, it would be two strikes and you are automatically out.

The Reform Party has taken the well designed, long term offender procedure in Bill C-55 and undermined the entire structure of this measure in an effort to get its cherished two strikes and you are out law on the books.

Let us spend a moment on the long term offender concept so that we can all understand the importance of this amendment. First, the idea came from a report by a federal-provincial task force on high risk offenders which federal and provincial justice ministers endorsed. The long term offender concept is a way to get at serious repeat sex offenders. It allows the court to add up to ten years of intensive supervision to the sentences of sex offenders. Moreover, if the crown does not get them with a dangerous offender application, it would probably succeed in getting a long term offender designation. Indeed, Bill C-55 gives us a double barrelled weapon against sex offenders.

The long term offender concept has also been seen as involving a special process, a special application, a thorough assessment of risk and an intensive hearing that goes beyond the normal sentence hearing. We need this special process partly because there is the prospect of locking this offender up for a very long time.

We also need to have a detailed assessment of risk. The long term offender rules allow a 60 day assessment by a range of experts. We need to have this special hearing so that the pattern of offending can come out in court and so that the extent of the offender's criminality can become fully evident.

The amendment in question does violence to the very nature of long term offender procedure by making everything automatic. Every offender would be subject to a long term offender designation without distinction. The pattern of past offending would not come out and the court would lack the information it needs to judge risk and impose the appropriate long term supervision period.

An automatic long term offender finding is so unselective as to be arbitrary in its use. It would encounter serious charter problems. The long term offender procedure as set out in Bill C-55 is structured to work hand in glove with the dangerous offender option.

If the criminal is not found to be a dangerous offender, in many cases he can easily be designated a long term offender in the alternative. I prefer a double barrelled effective option to the Reform's scatter gun ineffective approach.

Let us call the proposed amendment the son of Bill C-254. It would allow a dangerous offender application to be brought at any time during the sentence of an offender. This is very close to a recent private member's bill by the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley. It was examined in parallel to Bill C-55 by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

It is safe to say that Bill C-254 received absolutely no support from the two dozen witnesses who appeared before the committee. Unlike Bill C-55 it was defeated in committee for very good reason, I might add. Allowing a dangerous offender application to be brought years after the offender has been sentenced is unconstitutional.

Bill C-55 creates a six-month window of opportunity beyond sentence whereby the crown, having given notice to the convicted person, can reserve the right to seek a dangerous offender ruling within a few months of conviction. It can only do this when new evidence comes to light.

By contrast, the Reform Party amendment would wreak all kinds of unconstitutional havoc. Offenders would be sitting around for years wondering if the dangerous offender application might be brought against them, even though according to the charter of rights everyone has the right to know what the penalty will be for the crime.

The courts will not allow the criminal justice system to resentence offenders for the same conduct. The four amendments are not helpful. Together they seek to widen the net of dangerous and long term offender measures and in so doing weaken both.

If implemented, the amendments would catch small fish in the net and lessen our ability and our resources to deal with the most serious offenders. The government has taken an extensive and profound amount of time to get Bill C-55 right. I wish the Reform Party had done the same.

It is very typical of Reformers to bring forward amendments to legislation, to promote legislation in public which has no hope of meeting the tests of constitutionality. If they brought forward the amendments they talk about, there would be serious violent offenders and serious sexual offenders taking advantage of unconstitutional laws and wasting court time. There would be no effective measures to use against them in the end.

In contrast, the government is bringing forward measures that are effective, enforceable and constitutional as another part of the package to ensure safe homes and safe streets.

As has been said on many occasions, the government has acted forthrightly and sternly to bring forward amendments to the Criminal Code. More amendments or more changes to toughen up the criminal law have brought than in the history of the nation in the last 3.5 years.

We have seen the results. A reduction in the crime rate is one. It is also a result of taking a broad based approach to social justice and jobs, in addition to measures in the criminal law to bring about a decreased crime rate.

I urge the Reform Party to look at the results and to promote laws that are constitutional.

[Criminal Code, April 14th, 1997]

Do you mean the Reform Party?

[Criminal Code, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank my colleagues on the justice and legal affairs committee for their work in relation to Bill C-27.

The committee heard several important witnesses and, following the testimony of those witnesses, decided it would be appropriate to make two major amendments to the bill. I believe that the amendments, dealing with female genital mutilation and the prosecution of cases involving child sexual exploitation committed by Canadians outside Canada, significantly improve the bill by dealing more squarely with the problems of abuse and exploitation of women and children.

Bill C-27 was introduced in the context of the government's willingness to address the serious problem of violence against women and children. Violence violates women's and children's fundamental human rights and freedoms. The harm caused by violence undermines their ability to lead lives free of fear and coercion and imposes great costs on society.

The bill focuses on four particular problems related to violence against women and children: child prostitution, child sexual exploitation, criminal harassment and female genital mutilation. Its purpose is to provide for appropriate criminal legislation to deal with these problems and to make a clear statement that, notwithstanding the context in which it occurs, violence against women and children is clearly unacceptable.

Canada is already playing an important role at the international level to address the problem of violence against women and children. More particularly, through its participation in the drafting of the draft optional protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, Canada is committing itself to better protecting children, whether they are here or abroad, from all forms of sexual exploitation and unlawful sexual practices.

The involvement of young people in prostitution, whether in or outside Canada, is a serious and tragic problem which has become more evident over the years. It is particularly troublesome because young people, by virtue of their age and legal status, are more vulnerable than adults to danger, exploitation and abuse.

During the national consultations on prostitution, which were held during 1995 and 1996, it appeared that there was an urgent need to address the problems of youths involved in prostitution as

some provisions of the Criminal Code related to sexual offences against children have had a limited effect in reducing juvenile prostitution. Thus the changes proposed in Bill C-27 in relation to prostitution are aimed at protecting children from adult predators who seek children for sexual services or exploit young prostitutes for economic gain. These changes respond in part to the consultations and to the interim report of the federal, provincial and territorial working group on prostitution summarizing the results of these national consultations.

In relation to the customers wishing to obtain the sexual services of a person under 18, the present wording of subsection 212(4) limits the ability of the police to gather evidence to support a charge as the youth must either be willing to give evidence of his or her age in court or there must be solid evidence from another source of the person's age. Many youths are not willing to provide evidence of their age. Furthermore, police are not able to execute sting operations against those who would purchase sex from youths as the use of an adult decoy would mean that there was no attempt to purchase sex from somebody under 18 years of age.

During the national consultations on prostitution which I referred to earlier, there was strong support for amending subsection 212(4) to increase its enforceability. The present wording proposed to replace subsection 212(4) in Bill C-27 refers to a person who the offender believes is under the age of 18 years with a new subsection 212(5) providing an evidentiary presumption with respect to this belief.

We believe that both of these subsections will greatly assist the enforcement of this provision by allowing for the use of an undercover operator who can present himself or herself to the customers as being under the age of 18 years.

In relation to those who procure young people for prostitution, a new offence of aggravated procuring would also be created for those who, for their own profits and while living on the avails of youths involved in prostitution, use violence or intimidation in carrying out prostitution related activities. In order to send a strong message of society's absolute abhorrence of this type of crime, the offence carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years imprisonment.

While procuring youths is never acceptable as evidenced by the high sentences already included in the Criminal Code, procuring youths with these added serious circumstances is even less tolerable and is to be punished accordingly. Both public protection and the expression of public revulsion for such conduct would appear to require that the minimum time served in a correctional system be subject to legislative rather than judicial and administrative control.

As other victims of child sexual abuse, youths involved in prostitution are genuinely afraid to testify against their procurers due to fear of reprisal. The same can be said in relation to young victims of child pornography or of assault. For this reason, special protection to ease the burden of these youths testifying in court are made available in Bill C-27. These protections include publication bans as well as methods of testifying that are less intimidating than courtroom testimony such as video taped evidence or the use of screens.

Child sex tourism is another important area covered in Bill C-27. As members have seen in the media, there is growing concern at the national and international levels that citizens, mainly from developed countries, should not be able to go to a foreign, usually developing country and sexually exploit children with impunity.

Initially, Bill C-27 proposed to amend the Criminal Code to enable the criminal prosecution in Canada of Canadian citizens and permanent residents who travel abroad to engage in the sexual exploitation of children for money or other forms of consideration. However, in light of very important testimony of several witnesses, the justice and legal affairs committee decided that the bill should go further and allow not only for the prosecution of Canadians who engage in what is often referred to as child sex tourism, but also of Canadians who sexually abuse children, including Canadian children while abroad without any money or any consideration being involved.

The committee decided that two preconditions would be necessary before prosecution could be instituted in Canada in such child sexual abuse cases. First, the foreign state where the offence is alleged to have been committed would have to request Canada to prosecute the offence. Second, the consent of the responsible provincial attorney general would need to be obtained.

The committee decided that contrary to cases involving child sex tourism, where a clear international consensus exists, cases of child sexual abuse committed by Canadians outside of Canada could not be prosecuted in Canada without complying with these two preconditions.

I believe that in view of the lack of international consensus and for reasons related to the sovereignty of the state in which the offence is committed, such preconditions will allow Canada to comply with proper jurisdictional principles.

The practice of child sexual exploitation, whether in Canada or abroad, can be stopped only if each country is committed to adopting legislation to fight it and to working at the international level to have it recognized as being subject to criminal liability notwithstanding where the crime has been committed.

Bill C-27, as modified by the justice and legal affairs committee, recognizes this commitment and sends a very strong message nationally and internationally about Canada's intolerance of such abhorrent practices.

As the preamble to the bill indicates, this government is also committed to taking strong measures against criminal harassment or stalking, as it is sometimes called. The two reforms proposed by Bill C-27 will do exactly that and will thereby provide increased protection to women and their children, who are often the victims of such conduct.

Bill C-27 proposes that a person who commits murder while stalking in circumstances where he or she intended to make that victim fear for their safety and that of others, such as the victim's children, can be convicted of first degree murder. First degree murder carries mandatory life imprisonment with no eligibility of parole for 25 years.

Bill C-27 also proposes that a court imposing a sentence on a person convicted of stalking in the face of an existing protective court order shall treat such a breach as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.

Support for this strong denunciation of stalking conduct was recently expressed by the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice at a meeting in February.

Further, the Department of Justice's report on the implementation of existing criminal harassment provisions released in January also supports such efforts to treat criminal harassment as a more serious offence.

Bill C-27 also addresses the need to protect women and girls from the life and health threatening practice of female genital mutilation. Young girls in particular are especially vulnerable to this practice by virtue of their lack of maturity and will clearly be afforded better protection against this practice.

Bill C-27 proposes to clarify the existing law's prohibition of the practice by specifically stating that no form of female genital mutilation is permitted by Canadian criminal law.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs has further strengthened this amendment to ensure that there can be no doubt about the illegality of the practice of female genital mutilation. No one can consent to such a procedure that results in bodily harm.

This reform will facilitate the collaborative efforts of the departments of justice, health, the status of women, Canadian heritage and citizenship and immigration in developing public, legal, health and cultural and educational materials on FGM.

I wish to reiterate this government's commitment to addressing the problem of violence against women and children. I believe Bill C-27 is further evidence of Canada's leadership in that area, as it deals with several issues where young people and women are particularly vulnerable, juvenile prostitution, child sexual exploitation, female genital mutilation and criminal harassment.

Not only is Bill C-27 important for all Canadians, it demonstrates Canada's unwavering commitment at the international level to co-operate with other countries in developing measures to curb the abhorrent practice of sexually exploiting children wherever it takes place.

I think this bill demonstrates the commitment of the federal government in dealing with the criminal law to ensure that appropriate measures are put in place to deal in a tough manner with criminals and those who would decide to breach the norms of a civilized society, those norms contained within the Criminal Code of Canada.

As has been indicated on a considerable number of occasions, this legislation adds to the list of very successful, progressive legislation that has been put in place over the last term of the government to get tough on crime. More criminal legislation has been put in place by this government to get tough on crime than any government in the history of our nation. We have much to be proud of.

I wish to congratulate the members of the standing committee on legal affairs for their work and the Minister of Justice for his work in providing this type of leadership throughout the country in the field of criminal law.

[Crown Corporations, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we have before us today a motion asking the government to make all crown corporations subject to the Privacy Act.

While the motion is very specific it also addresses a much larger issue which has gained a new sense of urgency: the fact that Canadians feel they are losing control over their information or that they have been subjected to new invasions of privacy.

A recent survey suggests a great majority of Canadians are concerned about their privacy. This is hardly surprising. Personal information has become a valuable commodity in the marketplace. New technologies are making it possible to do widespread data matching and to electronically capture a person's profile for purposes of target marketing or other uses.

Without the consent of the individual, downstream use of personal information by third parties means the individual has lost control of his privacy and his personality. Not only that, but because of the unregulated exchange of personal information without the consent or even the knowledge of the concerned individual, financial and other decisions that have great implications on the individual's life may be based on inaccurate information.

Canadians are thus increasingly concerned that technology is threatening their privacy at home, on the street and in the workplace. Video surveillance in the street, workplace monitoring including interception of E-mail and voice messages, personality profiling aids, drug testing for employment screening, photo radar

and genetic testing are some of the examples of the threats to privacy created by new technologies.

New technological advances that promote efficiency and less costly flow of information also carry with them great dangers to the protection of individual privacy. As technology is making it easier to gather, manipulate and transmit personal information all over the world without individuals even knowing it is happening, concerns are growing that individuals could lose control over their information or be subjected to new invasions of privacy.

These considerations have led the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons to conduct a study of these issues. We are looking forward to its comments and recommendations.

Canadians view privacy as a fundamental right, and rightly so. We should not lose sight of the fact that the right to privacy is based not only on respect for an individual's anonymity and privacy but on his or her autonomy. The right of privacy is therefore not simply an individual right to be exercised in opposition to some larger public interest to make the operations of governments and businesses more efficient, less expensive and less subject to fraud. It should also be considered as an important social tool essential to the maintenance of a free society.

If citizens lose the basic individual autonomy provided them by the right of privacy they will not be able to make their own contribution to a free society. A free society cannot exist solely on values such as efficiency and attention to the bottom line. Mutual respect and personal autonomy, two values promoted by the right to privacy, are essential ingredients to a free society that must always be nurtured and protected.

The protection of personal information can no longer depend on whether that data is held by a public or private institution. This does not mean that rules governing the collection, use, communication and disposal of personal information need to be exactly the same for every individual and organization, but it means that it should be based on a common set of principles. It does mean that personal information held in the private sector should be protected by law.

What are the implications of the motion which is before us today? The Privacy Act governs the collection, retention and disposal of personal information by government institutions. It also limits the use government institutions may make of personal information and under what circumstances it can be disclosed to another government institution or to a third party. In brief, government institutions may only collect personal information defined as information about an identifiable individual that is recorded in any form that they need for one of their programs or activities. In most circumstances they must collect it directly from the individual to whom it relates. The personal information that has been used must then be kept for a certain amount of time, usually at least two years.

In addition, strict conditions must be met before personal information may be disclosed to a third party by a government institution.

Finally, the act grants individuals a right of access and correction which, if refused, may be investigated by the privacy commissioner and reviewed by the federal court.

When Parliament adopted the Privacy Act in 1982 the government was by far the main collector and user of information on individuals. The act was therefore made applicable to the various departments and agencies of the Government of Canada, including some crown corporations, such as Canada Post Corporation.

At the time, however, it was felt that crown corporations which conducted business in competition with the private sector, such as the CBC, should now be subject to the act so as not to place them at a disadvantage against their private sector competitors. Since then most provinces have adopted similar legislation applicable to their public sector. The province of Quebec has gone even further by subjecting its entire private sector to the protection of personal information legislation.

As it stands now, the Minister of Justice has committed the government to introducing legislation which will protect personal information held by federally regulated private sector businesses. As the Minister of Justice said last September at the international conference of privacy and data protection commissioners, by the year 2000 we aim to have federal legislation on the books which will provide effective, enforceable protection of privacy rights in the private sector.

The Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons will report to the House shortly on its study of privacy issues raised by the availability of new technologies, and I believe the government should wait for the recommendations of the committee before following up on the motion.

[Criminal Code, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I dealt with that in the body of my speech. I indicated that we are simply allowing that where there is a serious offence it will continue to be dealt with seriously. Where it is not so serious it will be dealt with in a more summary fashion.

[Criminal Code, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the changes introduced in the bill that deal with dual procedure offences, if the court decisions over the past number of years are looked at, we get an indication of what the judges are doing with respect to various types of offences.

All that we are trying to do, and something the provinces want to see because it aids the efficiency of the legal system, is to allow that where the cases are not so serious to give the provinces discretion to proceed at a more efficient level in court. Where the case is more serious, the result would be a more serious criminal sanction. Therefore, what it is doing is simply allowing more flexibility for the provinces. In more serious cases the accused will still be prosecuted in a serious, tough fashion with serious consequences if a conviction is rendered.

At the same time, in very minor cases, it would allow them to be handled in accordance with the type of issue that is a stake. That is simply reality.

[Criminal Code, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite has raised a number of points in his questions. He indicated that he investigated the three strikes rule in California. After someone has committed two violent offences-I do not know what the definition of violent is, perhaps two common assaults-and then afterward stole a pizza, he should be put in jail for life.

I am unclear what the hon. member means by violent offence. Certainly he is not suggesting that, in the case I mentioned in which someone brushes against someone else, committing common assault twice and then stealing a pizza, he should go to jail. That would be absurd.

The hon. member said that he researched a number of interesting techniques of crime prevention. There is the three strikes rule, caning in Singapore as well as a number of other issues. The member makes the statement that because the crime rate is going down in California with its three strikes rule, somehow it alone is responsible for the reduction in crime rate.

We have taken a very multi-pronged approach, as I indicated in my speech, to prevent crime. There is no simple solution to the problem of crime but if the hon. member's logic applies, then we are doing the right thing. The crime rate is going down here also.

[Criminal Code, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on the motion to read Bill C-17 a third time. During the course of debate on this bill there has been a considerable number of subjects discussed which did not necessarily relate to the subject matter of the bill. I will restrict my comments for the most part to the issues discussed in the bill.

Some may remember that Bill C-17 was originally introduced as Bill C-118 on December 14, 1995. At that time it was noted that it continued the work of Bill C-42, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1994 which had been adopted the year before. Bill C-42 was very well received. Provincial and territorial governments through their justice ministers have asked us to get on with producing a follow-up bill to continue the reforms and improvements to our criminal procedure law which were begun in Bill C-42. I believe Bill C-17 does just this. It appears the provinces are appreciative of this and are eager to see it passed.

When the bill was in committee a letter from the attorney general of New Brunswick was tabled. The purpose of the letter was to urge the committee members to seize the opportunity to make a number of significant improvements to our criminal justice system. It is worth referring to this letter more extensively in order to show how important our work in Parliament can be to the provinces that are responsible for the administration of the criminal law.

The hon. Paul Duffie, attorney general of New Brunswick, wrote to the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on September 17 and indicated that he wished to stress the importance of the proposed amendments contained in Bill C-17

and New Brunswick's particular interest in a number of its provisions.

He went on to indicate the following: "The bill's provisions can be broken down into a number of broad categories. The first category is those which enhance public confidence in the criminal justice system and here I refer to the statutory basis allowing police officers to take by warrant handprints, fingerprints and teeth impressions from suspects; expanding the release provisions that can be imposed by police officers to include such basic requirements as abstaining from alcohol or drugs, reporting as required and prohibiting the possession of firearms; retaining at the option of the crown trial jurisdiction in provincial court so that a limited category of offences could be dealt with expeditiously".

The letter identified a second category of provisions, those intended to make the Criminal Code more effective and efficient. Mr. Duffie then identified provisions aimed at broadening the scope of prehearing conferences, which will give judges more leeway to deal with preliminary issues, thereby narrowing the number of issues at trial and reducing trial time; replacing jurors who are unable to perform their duties, eliminating delays which can occur by restarting the trial; providing a precondition for the court appointment of counsel so there is a means test imposed, ensuring that the public purse is used to only assist those who cannot legitimately afford counsel.

With regard to the third category mentioned in the provisions intended to fill perceived gaps in the Criminal Code, he referred to the need for an offence for those accused who failed to comply with release conditions imposed by a police officer and those who make unauthorized use of credit card data, those who forge or falsify credit cards, those who possess a device for unlawfully obtaining computer devices and those who participate along with the driver in the theft of a vehicle for joy riding.

As a fourth category, the attorney general of New Brunswick identified those provisions intended to achieve compliance with court decisions. He referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in which the court interpreted the drinking and driving law so that the statutory presumption on blood alcohol has become less effective in contested cases, as the crown is currently obliged to call expert evidence to extrapolate the reading back to the time of driving and has determined that an arrested accused who is detained by police pending a court appearance must be brought before a judge within 24 hours of arrest.

Provisions in this bill will address these problems. He noted, in particular, that the technologically amendments in Bill C-17 would allow the provinces to use modern communication methods to conduct remote appearances, using one or two judges to cover the province, thereby greatly reducing the number of weekend courts which, with their limited human resources, are taking their toll on all of the participants. It is also quite costly to set up weekend courts in each region of the provinces.

The fifth category identified by the attorney general of New Brunswick contained provisions aimed at advances in technology to modernize procedures. He then referred to those provisions that would eliminate the need for a personal appearance in a court by police officers and accused persons for various administrative matters at various stages of the court process, including at the bail hearing, at the preliminary hearing and at the trial. Those provisions would enable investigators to make effective use of the new DNA warrant and general warrant procedures in major crime investigations by applying for and obtaining warrants using modern communication methods.

The sixth and final category includes provisions which try to improve evidentiary procedures. He mentioned the provision that would eliminate the necessity of calling witnesses to establish uncontested elements of certain events by providing affidavit evidence and the provisions that would allow the presentation of expert evidence through written reports, unless otherwise directed by the court.

The attorney general concluded by noting that there are many more provisions contained in this bill, all of which are intended to improve the workings of the criminal law of Canada. He stated that there is a window of opportunity for legislators, after due consideration and informed debate, to enact these measures which, in his view, will enhance criminal law enforcement, facilitate court proceedings, modernize the provisions of the Criminal Code and enhance public confidence in our justice system.

It is clear that this bill is important for the territories and the provinces. Indeed it is a good example of co-operative federalism in an important area where the federal government has the responsibility to enact criminal law and the provinces have the responsibility to administer it. I urge that the bill be passed as quickly as possible.

There were a couple of amendments which were put forward by the government for the purposes of clarifying existing legislation.

First, Bill C-17 was amended to change paragraph 742.1(b) of the Criminal Code by making it explicit that in addition to the judge being of the view that serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the community, which was in the provisions for conditional sentencing, the sentence also had to be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2. Such principles include the principle of denunciation, deterrence and the protection of the community. While implicit before, it was felt that it was important to make the application of those principles very explicit.

Over the past several months it has been the practice of the Reform Party to refer to specific cases which may be decided before the courts which in the view of the Reform Party are

incorrect, as is the case when every new piece of legislation is introduced.

Court decisions, provincial or Queen's bench or supreme court, differ from one another. The vast majority of the cases are decided correctly but there are exceptional cases where the public may be of the view that the case was incorrectly decided or the crown was of that view. Then the crown seeks an appeal of those decisions, and the defence can also appeal, when it is of the opinion that the decision is incorrect.

The appeal then goes to the court of appeal then to the supreme court and guidelines for the use of such sections are set out and are considered and delineated carefully. As the judicial process carries on, there is a clarification and improvement in the setting out of conditions under which conditional sentencing will operate. Each time there is a court decision which indicates that certain considerations are appropriate or if there is disagreement it is subject to appeal and improvement by the court superior to the one in which the decision was made.

It is probably not appropriate to simply take exceptional cases and make them the rule. Out of the 1000 cases that are decided, 999 are decided in an appropriate manner and are never mentioned. But the one that may not happen to be decided in that fashion is the one the Reform Party raises in an attempt to cast the whole justice system into disrepute.

With respect to this amendment, certainly conditional sentencing as it only applies to those criminal activities for which a sentence is two years or less, people are incarcerated by provincial governments. Because this is an administration of a justice issue, all the provinces were consulted, regardless of political stripe. While there may well have been some differences as to details, a broad consensus certainly existed that a change of this nature needed to be made. Certainly those familiar with the legal system see the jails of the land filled with people who are dangerous but also those who posed no danger to the community, who did not commit violent crimes. It was the desire of the provinces and the federal government to ensure that when people commit violent crimes there ought to be room in correctional facilities for them and that the space ought not to be taken up by people who would not pose a risk to society.

It is a mechanism of the conditional sentence that rather than allowing violent offenders to enter the jail and then days later because of lack of space being removed, it allows for non-dangerous offenders, people who have not committed violent crimes, to serve their sentence in the communities and more space will be freed up for those violent offenders, those who commit abhorrent crimes within the community. Therefore the community will be even more properly protected.

I would suggest that the conditional sentence is one mechanism that allows greater safety in communities by ensuring that for

people who commit violent crimes there will be room in our correctional facilities, thus ensuring they are there for an appropriate length of time.

The second amendment is with respect to victim impact statements and section 745 hearings. When Bill C-41 was introduced it was silent on when the victim impact statement provisions would become effective. This amendment merely seeks to clarify that and make certain that victim impact statements, if the victim wishes to make one, must be accepted by the court after the passage of this bill. That very briefly sums up the provisions of Bill C-17 and the amendments.

I want to make one more comment. I noted with interest when the hon. member from Calgary, the critic for the solicitor general, indicated that since California put in a three strike law the crime rate has gone done. He used that as an argument to suggest that if the crime rate is going down what is being done in California must be working and we should do it here.

I would like to inform the hon. member that over the last four years the crime rate in Canada has gone down, due largely in part to a broad range of initiatives. First, the initiatives taken by the government to toughen and strengthen the Young Offenders Act, the criminal law and other related criminal statutes. More amendments and more changes to improve and toughen the criminal law have been made by this government than had been made in the history of this nation. That is certainly part of the reason.

Another part is that the government has worked hard to increase jobs and economic opportunities for people. That is a very important factor in reducing the crime rate. As well, the government has introduced many important initiatives on the social front to ensure social justice. That too is of importance in reducing the crime rate; removing the underlying causes for crime.

I would like to wrap up and thank the hon. members for hearing me these few minutes on this bill. I hope this bill will receive prompt attention, will be quickly passed and that it will receive expedient and quick consideration by the other place so it can be brought into force as soon as possible for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Criminal Code, April 11th, 1997]

Reformers do not understand modernization.

[Committees Of The House, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, April 7, 1997, your committee has considered Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code (production of records in sexual offence proceedings), and your committee has agreed to report it with amendments.